Helen Bond’s– The First Biography of Jesus Part One

Last updated on: May 7, 2020 at 1:02 am by Ben Witherington

Helen Bond’s– The First Biography of Jesus Part One 2020-04-21T21:46:53-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(Eerdmans, 360 pages)

Helen Bond is a first rate Gospel scholar who has published important monographs on Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas among other helpful studies. Her most recent book entitled ‘The First Biography of Jesus‘ makes a detailed case that we must read Mark’s Gospels in light of ancient biographies and their conventions, as Mark’s Gospel fits well in that genre. Bond builds on the earlier important work of Richard Burridge among other NT scholars, but what really distinguished this work is Bond’s very detailed interaction with the work of classics scholars and scholars of ancient history who have studied ancient biographies and historical monographs in great detail. Sadly, it has not always been the case that NT scholars have done enough work in the primary sources on Greco-Roman literature to know whether meaningful comparisons can be made, and essential things learned from the comparisons. Bond makes it beyond reasonable doubt that if one really wants to understand the sort of literature Mark’s Gospel is, one must situate it in the context of ancient Greco-Roman biographies. This makes good sense, especially if Mark was written from and for a Roman audience during the last third of the first century A.D.

The book begins with a Forschungsberichte, which is to say a review of the discussion of the genre of Mark over the course of the last century or so. This is helpful, especially in its critique of the way 20th century form criticism approached the matter, not to mention all sorts of scholars who wrongly suggested that Mark’s Gospel was sui generis— a unique form of literature. Bond carefully and persuasively shows how this approach simply does not account for the data. Bond shows how Mark uses chreia and synkrisis, two important rhetorical devices like other ancient biographers of that era to structure his Jesus material. Furthermore, she is right that ancient biographers focused on the character of the central figure, usually with the aim of urging imitation of the virtues of the ‘hero’ of the tale. One upshot of this insight is that Bond thinks it is not likely that other figures in the tale, such as Peter or Judas or minor characters like Bartimaeus are meant to also be seen as exemplars Mark’s audience. No— their portrayal is merely meant to provide a sort of backdrop or even contrast with Jesus, who is the sole entirely positive figure in the whole Gospel. This point of view can be pushed too far, since especially in the case of Peter we find a person who is portrayed as having both positive and negative traits or behaviors. And by the same token, Jesus can only be an exemplar for disciples up to a point— since they can only be followers of Jesus. They can’t be messiahs or persons who atone for the sins of the many. But Bond recognizes this and provides a nuanced reading of the data.

This is an important study, well written, well researched, but of course there are some things that can be seen as shortcomings. For one thing, Bond doesn’t really recognize that a major structuring device for this Gospel is Mark’s theology, with the first half of the Gospel raising questions about who Jesus is, a question answered in Mark 8, after which, and only after which are we told in three straight chapters what Jesus’ mission is— to suffer many things, be killed and on the third day rise (in Mark 8-10–see my Gospel of Mark volume for Eerdmans) and only after do we have the Passion narrative, the tale of how Jesus’ life mission was accomplished. Furthermore, her treatment of Mark 16, assumed to be the original ending at 16.8 simply doesn’t work as an ending to a positive ancient biography. She admits that there is no parallel in the ancient biography corpus for an ending like that. And then there are the problems with analyzing ancient biographies as if they followed exactly the same conventions as the writing of ancient works of fiction such as ancient novels or romances. For example, talking about omniscient narrators or plot design or minor actors in the story can be overdone when we are in fact dealing with historical persons and historical events. But none of this takes away for what a good volume this is, and I would hope it will be widely read and be allowed to have the effect it deserves to have on the issue of whether Mark is an ancient biography or not, and what difference that makes in the interpretation of Mark’s meaning and purpose in writing the first ‘life of Jesus’.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

May 6, 2020

Avoiding Anachronism whilst Reading the Gospels

Next Post

May 8, 2020 Helen Bond's The First Biography of Jesus--- Part Two

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz